• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
2) Which takes up a whole city block

Meridian Plaza - It looks about half the size in width = .5
Caracas - It looks about half the size in width
The Meridian building's floor plates were 22,400 sq. ft. The Caracas tower had floor plates of 20,450 square feet. The WTC towers and building 7 had floor areas approximately twice the size of those buildings, with correspondingly more fuel available for combustion.
 
The first paragraph from the Caracas article:
The efforts by the military were gutsy by ineffective until the fire broke thru the roof.

146pmng3.jpg


Chris, what was the disposition of One Meridian Plaza?
It was FUBAR but it did not collapse, even though the fires burned out of control for 17 hours.

ETA: info on the reinforced concrete Caracas tower. Looks like Jesse Chacon's description wasn't quite accurate:
Do you think that WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse in a fire?
 
Do you think that WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse in a fire?
If you wanted a building to survive a serious fire, which would you choose:

An all-steel building that was heavily damaged (with unknown damage to the thermal protection on its steel), containing huge fuel tanks, that bridged a power station, with completely unfought fires; or

A mostly reinforced concrete building of half the floor plan, with 10-foot-thick slabs dividing the building into sections, undamaged, with fires that were fought?

Answer honestly.
 
Rrramon, you may not be familiar with the many interesting ideas Chris has about fire, steel, photo analysis, and standards of evidence. Here's a primer:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2347941&postcount=913
Classic ideas on the truth movement. What makes someone say those things?

Funny the steel in the Madrid building did not make it past a couple of hours and there was no giant impact from a large aircraft. That is a classic list of truther ideas. I love the PhD peer review papers stuff. Classic stuff. Everyone has their "concrete core" to bear.
 
The Meridian building's floor plates were 22,400 sq. ft. The Caracas tower had floor plates of 20,450 square feet. The WTC towers and building 7 had floor areas approximately twice the size of those buildings, with correspondingly more fuel available for combustion.

That's 2 out of 6... Not looking good Chris. :P
 
Lets see how they meet my apples with apples challenge...


Meridian Plaza = 2.5 out of 6
Caracas = 2.5 out of 6

Still apples and oranges...
Point taken
They are the closest examples that i know of.

Do you think WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse due to fire?
 
Christopher7;2548274]The efforts by the military were gutsy by ineffective until the fire broke thru the roof.

Try again, this time READ what we post...

Commanders at the scene decided to bring a 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, fed by fire engines at the ground level, all the way up one of the fire stairs. Two portable booster pumps, each flowing 264 gallons per minute (gpm) at 58 psi (1,000 liters per minute [lpm] at 4 bar), were used to provide adequate pressure above the fire floor.

At approximately 1:15 a.m., firefighters working with two 1-inch (38-millimeter) hose lines from different locations above the 34th floor were able to slow the upward movement of the fire considerably. By 3 a.m., a second 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, identical to the first one, had been put into service, and firefighters confined the fire to three to four floors above the 34th floor. This approach was successful through the first five or six hours of the fire, when the fire spread vertically at a rate of approximately one floor every three hours. The 27th floor became the main staging area for about 100 firefighters.

At 7 a.m., some of the booster pumps started to malfunction, and the fire regained intensity, spreading vertically at a rate of about one floor per hour until approximately 10 a.m. Around 11 a.m., the fire breeched the fifth macroslab, below the 39th floor, and around noon, the stairwells’ fire enclosure started to fail. Concerned that the building might collapse, the fire chief immediately ordered that interior firefighting operations be abandoned. It should be noted that the CFD only reported minor injuries among its personnel during this risky operation.

The fire continued to move upwards through the afternoon, at a rate of about 2 1/2 floors per hour. Between 2 and 3 p.m., the Venezuelan government began using helicopters with water buckets, commonly used on forest fires, in an unsuccessful attempt to slow the fire down.
Why would they be concerned of collapse in a "Modern Steel Frame skyscraper?" if they are so safe?

The evidence is the exact opposite to your statement. What a shock...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Point taken
They are the closest examples that i know of.

Do you think WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse due to fire?
Why do you continue to leave out the impact damage?

While NO building was designed to withstand being hit by another building AND being on fire for long, I wouldn't be the first to think WTC 7 was a death trap. This was debated before 9/11. It wasn't even designed to be hit by a 707 WITHOUT fuel yet it stood on fire on multiple floors for 6 hours after being hit so hard multiple floors bulged.

The #6 fuel oil was always a very dangerous part of the building. So yes, THAT building was worse than most skyscrapers. But I don't blame the designers. How in the WORLD would they know someone would fly airliners into another building and that building would hit number 7.

With what I know today I wouldn't have built that building over the substation. That answer your question?
 
If you wanted a building to survive a serious fire, which would you choose:

An all-steel building that was heavily damaged (with unknown damage to the thermal protection on its steel), containing huge fuel tanks, that bridged a power station, with completely unfought fires; or

A mostly reinforced concrete building of half the floor plan, with 10-foot-thick slabs dividing the building into sections, undamaged, with fires that were fought?

Answer honestly.
After viewing the photographs of the two buildings in question, i would call it a toss up.

In building #1, the fires were far less severe and mostly in the south west part of the building.

The major debris damage was limited to the south west facade.

The fuel tanks were in the west half of the building.

I would expect a partial collapse at the SW corner but not a collapse
beginning at the other end of the building.

The fires in building #2 burned 10 hours longer and completely gutted much of the upper floors.

648pmdw1.jpg


You didn't answer my question.
Answer honestly.
Do you think that WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse in a fire?
 
Why would they be concerned of collapse in a "Modern Steel Frame skyscraper?" if they are so safe?
In all three cases, they thought the building might collapse.

The possibility is there, so one must plan for the worst.

The Meridian Plaza and the Caracus Tower did not collapse even though they burned out of control more than 10 hours longer than WTC 7.

Firefighting efforts did not lower the temperature of the fires that were out of reach.
 
After viewing the photographs of the two buildings in question, i would call it a toss up.
...You didn't answer my question.
Answer honestly.
Do you think that WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse in a fire?
Talk about a no-brainer. I'll take the half-sized undamaged concrete building with the firefighters for 200, Alex.
 
In all three cases, they thought the building might collapse.

The possibility is there, so one must plan for the worst.

The Meridian Plaza and the Caracus Tower did not collapse even though they burned out of control more than 10 hours longer than WTC 7.

Firefighting efforts did not lower the temperature of the fires that were out of reach.

After looking at what each one of the three buildings went through, which do you think was in the biggest danger of collapsing?

The heavily damaged, burning, creaking, bulging, leaning building? Or the buildings that burned for several hours longer?
 
Okay, I think I can post pictures now. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, you get a really good closeup top-down view of the SW corner of the WTC7 in the Spak video. I've layered several frames of this together; the frames are of varying sizes because of Spak's zooming. I'm not too good with Photoshop so perhaps someone could do a better job than me; I could post the individual frames here if someone else wants to try their hand at it.

bldg7compositetc9.jpg


I'd really like to hear what you all make of what is going on here. Something looks pretty odd here.
 
I'd really like to hear what you all make of what is going on here. Something looks pretty odd here.
What do you think is odd? (Looks like a bulge there, which would be understandable because there was a bulge there, but misalignment of the photos may add to that effect.)
 
Last edited:
Why do you continue to leave out the impact damage?
Because the debris damage to the SW part of
wtc 7 did not contribute to the initiating event, that led to the global collapse.
NIST did not say that the debris damage contributed to the collapse.
Why do you keep insisting that it did?
[see post #1885]

While NO building was designed to withstand being hit by another building AND being on fire for long, I wouldn't be the first to think WTC 7 was a death trap. This was debated before 9/11. It wasn't even designed to be hit by a 707 WITHOUT fuel yet it stood on fire on multiple floors for 6 hours after being hit so hard multiple floors bulged.
There was NO debris damage in the area of the initiating event.
[see post #1884]

The #6 fuel oil was always a very dangerous part of the building. So yes, THAT building was worse than most skyscrapers. But I don't blame the designers. How in the WORLD would they know someone would fly airliners into another building and that building would hit number 7.
There were NO diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
[see post # 1884]

With what I know today I wouldn't have built that building over the substation. That answer your question?
Do you think the designers were so incompetent that they didn't properly design WTC 7 to allow for this?
 
I think you're right, I just realized on the video there is a slight roll of the camera to the right towards the bottom, I bet that is what gives it the funny look. I'm still surprised that the photos still fit together as well as they did.
 
Talk about a no-brainer. I'll take the half-sized undamaged concrete building with the firefighters for 200, Alex.
So you think WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of one core column led to the total collapse in about 15 seconds.

You keep talking about the firefighters as if that made a difference.

What is your reason for implying that the lack of firefighting was a factor the collapse of WTC 7?
 
After looking at what each one of the three buildings went through, which do you think was in the biggest danger of collapsing?

The heavily damaged, burning, creaking, bulging, leaning building? Or the buildings that burned for several hours longer?
You keep talking about the damage as if it contributed to the collapse.

NIST made no such claim.

Why do you?
 
Commanders at the scene decided to bring a 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, fed by fire engines at the ground level, all the way up one of the fire stairs. Two portable booster pumps, each flowing 264 gallons per minute (gpm) at 58 psi (1,000 liters per minute [lpm] at 4 bar), were used to provide adequate pressure above the fire floor.


The line size is actually a 2 1/2" (63mm) - according to FDNY rule of thumb
a line this size should be able to control an area of 2500 sq ft (50 x50)
Area of each floor is over 20,000 sq ft, 10x the size one line could handle
With the fire load of modern buildings which are mostly synthetic materials
with a higher BTU values (12000-16000 btu/lb vs 8000btu for organics) it
is extremely difficult to extinguish a well involved fire in a high raise
 
Did you forget that the dust cleared and people went back to GZ in about 15 to 20 minutes?
After the dust cleared, Hayden was able to see that "it took a while for that fire to develop."

I think you're reaching, here.

A paraphrase is saying the same thing in a different way.

Exactly. I was too lazy to look it up.

When you changed "I" to "He" you changed the meaning.

No I didn't. In both cases you implied that the fact that neither me nor either you or "he" could see through the smoke. In doing so, no matter if you said one or the other, you proved my point, not yours.

That is called a misquote.

Yes, a mistake on my part. I really read "he".

Then you used that misquote to imply that i had contradicted myself.

You did.

That was intentionally dishonest.

No, it wasn't. Why would I do that ? The end result is the same, in both cases. Lying wouldn't help me one way or another.

Based on the statements in the NIST report, i concluded that:

"The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part."


You didn't conclude that. You're just copy-pasting.

This statement is consistent with:

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

We've been through this, already. And I guess this means you think that structural damage and fire can't spread through a building.

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

And yet you quote that...

My reasoning is:
If the damage to the SW part of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event, NIST would have included it in their 'Collapse Initiation Scenerios'.

Well, then. Perhaps you can tell me what NIST thinks led to the initiating event, then ?

You can cling to 'NIST didn't specifically say that it wasn't a factor' if you like.

Strawman.

The fires were due to the falling debris.

Good. Does fire spread ?

That is a subject for another thread.

Not really. It's a single answer I'm looking for, not a derail.

I included the word "modern" because someone found a 100 year old steel frame building that had partially collapsed due to fire.

And somehow you seem to think that "old design" = "poor design". It's been pointed out that older buildings with different constructions (and therefore less office space) could have survived the incident.

Fireproofing: Good point.

So you concede that modern high-rise buildings CAN collapse due to fire ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom